Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

Giving gear-heads a hard on? I wouldn't call a lens of that significance frivolous, as I would love to have one... Although the Sigma 400-1000mm F5.6 is a whole lot more affordable... relatively anyway. It even comes in a nice almost Slashdot green too. http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3349&navigator=3 [sigmaphoto.com] Plus it has f2.8 at the low end which is impressive.

Sports photographers, even for Soccer, use a 300mm to 400mm lens at most. A 1200mm lens would only be effective at taking pictures of things half a mile away or more (depending on the size of the thing, of course). The minimum focus distance for that bad boy is 46 feet, practical only if you're the poor photographer who is deprived of a sideline pass and are forced to take pictures from the nosebleeds. But then again, why would you spend $90,000 (the actual MSRP) on one if you were?

Or you are the photographer who is behind one endzone and is taking pictures of the players in the OTHER endzone. You might also be the photographer behind the center field wall and trying to get a good close-up of the batter that's usually also about 100 yards. These lens are often used in photography at pro-sporting events. The 46-foot focus on that is really not that far when you consider this distances involved in some sports. Yes, they are also used by paparazzi and stalkers. See here http://www.s [southcreekglobal.com]

because those 1200mm, $90,000 lenses are all hand made by Canon. Sports Illustrated owns one, for example. If you do any wildlife photography it's pretty damn hard to get close to many animal in their natural habitat. it's not too hard to see how 1200mm [juzaphoto.com] focal length has uses. Like most other lenses, there's a niche in which it thrives in, and it just doesn't happen to be in the small, man-made stadiums you're used to.

I doubt the lens that has held the "Longest Prime" title for over 15 years was designed

A police inquiry has already been ruled out. The Crown Prosecution Service "review", will amount to just that. Any parliamentary inquiry will likely be muted, and satisfied with only the resignation of the Tory's PR man Andy Coulson (Former News of the World Editor) as a tit for tat retribution for the resignation of Labor's PR man Damian McBride. Those bugged will be paid off(some already have been) with settlements that will hardly dint Rupert Murdoch's News International's $21 billion chest. The press complaints commission is the industry's "self regulation" body, paid for by the newspapers themselves.

They will get away with this.

This skullduggery that News International paid private investigators to carry out; hacking, wire fraud, misrepresentation, etc, has been going on for at least a decade. One of the victims mentioned, Charlotte Coleman's, died in 2001 when they paid for someone to obtain a list of friends and family from her parents phone. Victims include TV celebrities, Royal family members, CEOs and members of parliament. These people paid someone to put a camera in a room where Max Mosley(67) was having sex. They printed some of it next to the regular outrages they print every single day. There is absolutely no limit to what these people will do.

They will get away with this.

The culture that brought this about is worst at the News of the World newsroom, but it is by no means confined to that place. It's pervasive throughout Murdoch's publications, and probably beyond. News International papers, the Mirror, the Daily Mail, the Observer, the list goes on. Steve Whittamore's(the private investigator) papers show over 13,000 from over 300 journalists. And this is all from only one such man. Who knows how many other investigators exist, an industrialized cottage industry for illegal snooping.

They will get away with this. The culture runs too deep, and is too established. Too many newspapers are in on it. Too many people have too much dirt and are all too ready to print it if anyone tries to reign in a media that has grown so grossly over-mighty. Nothing is sacred, no one is safe, and no one can defend themselves from the hounds that the moguls can set upon them. What chance does anyone have if CEOs and MPs phones are being tapped?

These people paid someone to put a camera in a room where Max Mosley(67) was having sex.

Nope, they paid someone to wear a camera into one of Max Mosley's spanking sessions; no sex involved. Then they only paid her half of what they promised and printed a bunch of BS about it being Nazi-themed that was entirely untrue (but was what they wanted the story to be). Finally, they tried to blackmail the other women involved into giving their stories by threatening to splash their names, photos and other personal information across the front page if they didn't. Quite impressive, though since the pres

Would it make a difference if they had said "allegedly"? People always assume that those accused are guilty.
Look at COPS on TV. They have a disclaimer that says "all suspects are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law" but the content of the show clearly implies that everyone is guilty.
Disclaimers are so common and superfluous* that nobody pays attention to them anymore.

No, the content of the show is evidence that most, not all, are guilty of at least one crime...evading police or resisting arrest. When you're getting arrested and you fight with the police you're committing a crime regardless if you committed the one they were arresting you for.

Well, I don't know how it is in third world countries. But here in Germany, if you leave the "allegedly" away, even in the headline of a tabloid newspaper, you will get sued and your business may get closed down if you do not immediately rectify the statement.

Or maybe it's because an editor and a private investigator have already been jailed for their part in the hacking?

Or maybe because News International has already paid out over Â£1 million to settle court cases brought by some of the people they listened in on, on the condition that they can't say anything about the case or settlement to anybody else, ever? And News International has not denied any of the allegations?

The fact that a single, unelected individual can become as powerful as Murdoch is worrying in this day and age. After Tony Blair flew out to Australia to breakfast with Murdoch, the British tabloids switched overnight and Blair won the next election. According to the Independent, Murdoch is "so powerful that no politician dare take him on." [independent.co.uk] According to Business Week:

"his satellites deliver TV programs in five continents, all but dominating Britain, Italy, and wide swaths of Asia and the Middle East. He publishes 175newspapers, including the New York Post and The Times of London. In the U.S., he owns the Twentieth Century Fox Studio, Fox Network, and 35 TV stations that reach more than 40% of the country...His cable channels include fast-growing Fox News, and 19 regional sports channels. In all, as many as one in five American homes at any given time will be tuned into a show News Corp. either produced or delivered."

It is worrying that, in a democratic society, any single individual can influence public opinion so convincingly that even the governing left-leaning politicians, who would be his traditional enemies, must do underhand deals in order to gain his support and stay in power.

He's only a single UNELECTED individual because he wants to be. He could have any political office he wanted at this point. Just look at Silvio Berlusconi, one of the most blatantly corrupt politicians since Baby Doc, who gets elected time and again simply because he owns almost all of the country's media and has cowed the rest into submission. I was going to say "any political office except US president", but the bastard could probably convince people to change the Constitution to allow even that.

The hacking of mobile phones was a simple trick known to many a tabloid reporter. (Call the mobile number, when it went to voicemail tap in the network default pin code. If the phone owner hadn't set a pin code you were in and could listen to voicemails.)

There's no new evidence because the police have been sitting on it all since 2005.

A mountain of gossip and scandal has been illegally amassed for over 10 years by these people. CEOs, MPs and even the royal family have been bugged. Do you honestly think that Police commissioners have escaped with their secrets intact?

It's not eavesdropping on full conversations - apparently they listened into some people's voicemail accounts by dialing the voicemail and then using default pin codes (eg. 0000 or 1234) to listen to the conversations.

There is not much you can do about it short of either changing your password or disabling voicemail or the carriers could inconvenience their customers by not allowing voicemail from other phone numbers (if that is at all possible)

Not really a valid analogy since the voicemail messages are not being stolen, per se, just observed (or in this case listened to). I think a better one would be 'I see you left your door unlocked so I let myself in and read your diary'. Still not good, but also not theft.

So why didn't the police notify the general public that reporters were using this trick, and advise all cell phone users to set their PINs properly? I mean, aren't the police there to "protect and serve?"

Or, are the police using this trick, as well, and didn't want to go public with a method that they are using to snoop on people, without any tap warrant?

1.When you first get a phone, auto-dial you once a day during business hours and prompt you to set a PIN until you do so

2.Do not allow you to retrieve any queued voice mail until a PIN has been set, require that PINs can only be set from the number they are attached to (without the aid of customer service)

3. Require PIN entry when dialed from other numbers. When you enter your PIN successfully it should say, "Thanks! You last logged in x ago", and if appropriate "Since then there have been x unsuccesful attempts to log in".

4. If too many bad PINs are entered by default lock voicemail and redirect to customer service.

Items #1&2 are a one time inconvenience when you get a new phone number. #3 adds 5 seconds to your call only when you use a different phone to check your voicemail. #4 just makes sense, and in the case that someone is getting DOS'd there could be a flag on the account customer service could set to use longer PINs that don't auto-lock.

I don't buy into the "there is not much you can do about it line" since by this time anyone competent enough to design a voice-mail system for use by a large carrier ought to have enough experience with computers to understand fundamental guidelines for basic security. I came up with the above list in under 30 seconds.

There are three other things, two of which I've had done for ATM cards.

First, based on the how voicemail works, you need a PIN only when calling from a different number. This feature could be off by default, and require you to call in and activate it. This is based on the way computers allow remote users (off by default).

When you acquire a phone, it could force you to type a PIN into a pad (taken from how some ATM card distributors work).

While I agree with points 1, 2, and 3, as you point out, locking accounts after X number of invalid PIN/password attempts leads to a very well known DoS attack. Best to just disable access for an hour or less after 3 bad PINs; requiring customer service intervention for something that happens all the time can get very expensive. I would also point out that most small company voice mail system don't have a customer service representative to redirect to (like the company I work for, for example. The best you

Ideally you have two thresholds, first may trigger a temporary lockout as you mention, but the second should still lock the voice mail. There are only 10K possible combinations for voicemail, and I bet many fewer common combinations based on patters or number/character equivalent sequences. Another enhancement would be to automatically send someone a text message after either threshold is met. At least it promotes awareness.

To clarify #3 users who are dialing in from their own phone number should still be t

Items #1&2 are a one time inconvenience when you get a new phone number. #3 adds 5 seconds to your call only when you use a different phone to check your voicemail. #4 just makes sense, and in the case that someone is getting DOS'd there could be a flag on the account customer service could set to use longer PINs that don't auto-lock.

You:

That would be annoying as hell.

Which part would be "annoying" - i.e. something you would have to do more than once ever (like setting your PIN), or something you would have to do anyway (i.e. entering it from another number)?

People like you are why we have stupid laws prohibiting things that most of us can handle responsibly blocked or prohibited for the sake of the retarded few.

To the contrary, it is people like you who make a poorly considered knee-jerk reaction to well considered discussions , speaking very loudly and making stupid accusations while doing so, that cause the very laws you're speaking of.

The overall impact of everything I suggested? For 99.9% of people all it would mean that after buying a new phone you were forced to set a PIN.

How about the admins do their job and use unique defaults instead of 1234? It really is incredible how lazy people are with passwords. Id rather assign you 84833 as your VM password than have you leave it 12345.

The Telco I work for does it the smart way. Your default pin # is the last 6 digits of your account number. So assuming you have an account with us, and a bill you know your pin. The system WILL NOT under any circumstances allow you to use your default pin for anything other then initial login.The first login forces you to change your pin to something else before you are allowed to listen to your messages.

The other problem becomes the user setting the pin to the # on the front of their house, birthdays or p

Don't know.. maybe British Telecom ?.. So perhaps these are landlines as opposed to cell phones ?.. and the story gets lamer and lamer, I suppose there are some people who use the phone companies voicemail as opposed to a physical answering machine for their home phone.. well, la..de..da big spending celebs who throw away their money on fancy add on services. (course who knows maybe BT includes it, unlike the phone co's here)

When BT eavesdrop on 10,000 of their customers private communications (by way of PHORM) nothing is done [theregister.co.uk], but when 3000 celebs voicemail are involved they scream bloody murder.either intercepting peoples communication (of any kind) is illegal or its not, and if it is illegal why are there no prosecutions and conspiracy charges brought upon all DPI operators ?my ADSL internet goes down the same phonelines as voice but somehow its "different"

If I find a random, unprotected WAP and decide to make use of it, I'm simply getting on the Internet without paying to do so. I have no knowledge of WHY the person providing the connection is doing so - but could reasonably assume they INTENDED to make it freely accessible. (After all, many people do this for the sake of providing their community with a public service. You can find web sites dedicated to it, with tips on the best antennas to place outdoors so people get th

I interpret their SSID broadcast and lack of encryption to be an invitation. If they had the SSID broadcast turned off, or if they had encryption turned on (and didn't deliberately make the key available to me, e.g. by putting it in the SSID, or posting it on the wall) then I would assume I wasn't invited. Gaining access by monitoring encrypted traffic and doing a brute-force crack on the encryption key would be impolite.

Murdock. Rupert Murdock? Wasn't Skype taken over by Rupert Murdoch? Skipe having backdoors that allow undetected eavesdropping? I always wondered what he wanted with Skipe. Now I see the whatever billions he paid for Skipe turning out to be just an old man with a toy.

Wow, I don't think it's appropriate to shoot people for rifling through your luggage, but your point is otherwise well taken. Yeah, it's wrong for people to violate your basic privacy rights, but assuming they won't is rather silly because you should have the sense to know that plenty enough people would. That's why we have passwords for our e-mail, PIN codes for our debit cards, and combination locks on our luggage in the first place.

I do not think it is too weak in the case of a celebrity. Celebrities constantly have to worry about the press spying on their private lives; that is the nature of being a celebrity. If they do not draw their curtains when they do something private, a photographer with a long-distance lens will be able to record it; likewise, if they do not change their voicemail password, a reporter with a telephone will record their voicemails.

The only thing that should be "wrong" about spying or peeping is when the government does it or an individual violates private property rights to do it. If your phone isn't secured, it should get "hacked". If we create a law to somehow prevent this, then we will live in a society relying on morals instead of true security.

Frankly, the wireless carriers should not allow 5 consecutive PIN failures. If government steps in and punishes the spies, then we effectively get nothing

If you lock the door with a standard-type key (the numbered kind that everyone can buy, or you can jimmy with a screw-driver), it's still both a crime and wrong to unlock it and take everything you can find.

That open door is on your private property. That poorly secured voicemail is on a system that is legally accessible to all of the provider's customers. "Your" voicemail is NOT your property. This is an issue between the provider, the "hacker", their contract (if there is one), and the property/contract rights enforcer (government). It should have nothing to do with the celebrity.

According to the media, you are a hacker if you are even aware that default passwords can be used to bypass a security system. You are a hacker if you are capable of doing anything with a computer without a big corporation babying you along.

The media has no clue about hackers. The New York Times is the same paper that has articles about "cool new software" to do things like digital post-it notes -- in the year 2009. Do you really expect them to differentiate between hacking and simply using a default password?

In regards to the (alleged) North Korean computer attacks on US and South Korean servers... I watched an NBC report where they first used the word "hacked", shortly followed by "cracked", and then after those loaded words finally explained that the attacks were denial of service. I guess it's as stupid as equating virus/worm/trojan/spyware.

Add that to the list if there's room. I know they're likewise clueless about basic biology, let alone stem cells, genetics, evolutionary theory, or microbiology. A friend of mine who is an ordained priest once pointed out to me that they're usually off on religious issues as well. General news services aren't really good at anything it seems besides celebrity gossip. Of course, it's a reflection of society's ignorance, which is even more depressing. Ask some guy off a street what a hacker is, I bet you'd be dissapointed. Hell, you'd probably be dissapointed in MY answer as to what a hacker is.

For both our sakes, I won't answer, nor will I start quizing you about biology.

They weren't doing that. RTFA, they'd call the number and then dial the default PIN to try to access the voicemail. If the PIN hadn't been changed from the default, they'd be able to listen to all the messages.

Not sure if I would classify changing your caller ID to the number of the victims phone number and then calling the victims voicemail (most are configured without password) to listen to voicemail messages, "hacking". This is a common feature of all outbound SIP providers.

There are 2 numbers provided with every phone call - the caller ID and the ANI. The caller ID can be changed, the ANI is part of the switching protocol & is inserted by the phone company at the switch & can't normally be changed (it

This has been known for a very long time but SIP providers set the ANI to the CID value. Also, every voicemail provider that I've ever seen that does use the caller ID value to authenticate the caller into the voicemail box does not use the ANI value.

I expected this typical regurgitation from those not used to thinking.If you don't do something different you will continue to get the same results.If you don't want the same results, do something different.If you don't trump their power, they will continue as usual.If you continue to spew mantra, you will eventually obscure the problem.Then you are part of the problem.If you like taking it up the ass from the media, by all means bend over and grease up.Don't expect everyone to join you just because you hav

Outside/., I mostly read the Chicago Tribune. Sure, they aren't perfect, but they do a good share of reporting on crooked politians (being in good supply around here). If I had to pick between politicians and the media, I'd trust the media. They are far less harmful, and they can even occasionally be helpful.

I had written a fairly long post on how you were wrong, but the more I wrote, the more I realised that everything I believe is at fault.

I lock my car because I expect it to be stolen if left unlocked, and I expect the insurance company to not pay out for the theft because I left it unlocked. Why is this? I should expect the insurance company to pay out for my loss in any eventuality for which I am insured! That's the purpose of insurance!